KEY POINTS:
Increasing pressure is being put on National to support Government changes to the court process that would spare victims the trauma of giving evidence twice.
Sensible Sentencing Trust chairman Garth McVicar yesterday called on National to stop opposing the Criminal Procedure Bill, which would largely abolish pre-trial depositions hearings.
His comments come after Lesley Elliott, the mother of murdered Sophie Elliott, said giving evidence at last week's hearing for accused Clayton Weatherston was "traumatic" and the thought of having to do it again at trial was "hideous".
Mr McVicar said he could not see how National could justify keeping depositions rather than streamlining the court process.
"It has just become a gravy train for the defence lawyers and I would be very disappointed if National is supporting that stance.
"They've been to our meetings and seen the trauma these people get put through."
The Criminal Procedure Bill has stalled in Parliament for more than a year because Labour cannot get a majority to pass it.
National supports all the other parts of the bill except for the clause abolishing depositions hearings.
The chief High Court judge, Justice Tony Randerson, made the rare move in Saturday's Weekend Herald of pleading with Parliament to pass the bill because of the section allowing for methamphetamine cases to be heard in the district court, relieving pressure on the overloaded High Court.
National Party justice spokesman Simon Power said yesterday that Justice Randerson's plea had led National to contact the Government to "negotiate" over passing the bill.
Mr Power said the party still had concerns about abolishing depositions hearings, but acknowledged the concerns of Mrs Elliott and the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
However, top Auckland lawyer John Haigh, QC, said it was "absolute nonsense" for the Labour Government to blame National for stalling the bill and therefore adding to the pressure on the High Court.
Mr Haigh, who supports the Criminal Bar Association in wanting to keep depositions, said Labour "could have passed this bill a year ago" without the depositions clause, allowing for methamphetamine cases to be shifted down.
Mr Haigh, who described himself as "no National Party supporter", said he could not stand by as Labour tried to "smuggle" through abolishing depositions because of the pressure on the High Court.
Mr Haigh, who said he was supported by Paul Davison, QC, and Stuart Grieve, QC, said depositions hearings were able to act as a "sounding board" before the trial where deficiencies in the prosecution case could be exposed or examined, saving time at trial.
DEVIL'S IN THE BILL'S DETAILS
THE BILL
The Criminal Procedures Bill would introduce wide-ranging changes such as allowing exceptions to the double jeopardy rule, 11-1 majority verdicts and largely abolish pre-trial depositions hearings.
THE STALEMATE
Labour (49 votes), Jim Anderton (1) and Act (2) are for the bill. Even with NZ First (7) and Taito Phillip Field (1), who aren't saying, this would only garner 60 votes - one short of a majority.
They must get the support of National (48), which also has the proxy vote of Gordon Copeland (1), or United Future (2) who are particularly against the depositions clause. Greens (6) and the Maori Party (4) are all against the bill for more substantial reasons.
THE STICKING POINT
The abolishment of depositions hearings, where it is currently decided if "there is a case to answer" and it should proceed to trial. Labour says these should go, allowing a judge to make the decision "on the papers", streamlining the process and saving victims from giving evidence twice.
National has supported retaining the hearings, saying they remove complexities before a case gets to trial, result in guilty pleas or withdrawal of charges.
